Appeal No. 1996-3995
Application 08/283,721
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over JP ‘677 (Answer, page 2).
We reverse these rejections for reasons which follow.
OPINION
A. The Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
Under 35 U.S.C. § 102, every limitation of a claim must
identically be described in a single prior art reference for
it to anticipate the claim. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832, 15
USPQ2d 1566, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
As stated by the examiner on page 3 of the Answer, JP
‘677 teaches a method of treating a cloth for ink jet printing
by applying a water-in-oil (W/O) type emulsion with specified
amounts of a water soluble polymer, a water-insoluble solvent,
and water (see JP ‘677, paragraph bridging pages 9-10).
Appellants argue that the claims on appeal require an O/W
emulsion while JP ‘677 teaches a W/O emulsion (Brief, page 6).
The examiner recognizes this distinction in language but
asserts that the emulsion of JP ‘677 is identical to the
claimed emulsion since they have identical compositions,
citing Example 2(e) of JP ‘677 (Answer, page 3; Supplemental
Answer, page 1).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007